1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.265

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 948–953

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

______ * Corresponding author. Tel. +90-212-449 1576/ +90-212-481 6841; fax: +90-212-449 1514/ +90-212- 449 1598. E-mail address: semra akyol@hotmail.com.

WCLTA 2010

Effects of Social Constructivist Learning Environment Design on 5th Grade Learners’ Learning

Semra Akyol a*, Seval Fer b a Classroom Teacher, Kemal Kaya Primary School, 34160-Istanbul,, Turkey.

b Assoc. Prof., Educational Faculty, Department of Educational Sciences, Yildiz Technical University, 34210-Istanbul, Turkey.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of ‘Social Constructivist Learning Environment’ (SCLE) on the 5th grade primary school learners. The study sample was composed of seven 5th grade learners attending at the primary schools in Istanbul, Turkey. In this qualitative study, a focus group method was used with a phenomenological approach. In the scope of the study, semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted and analyzed using the method developed by Miles and Huberman (1992). Analyses showed that SCLE design is effective on learning of learners and on provision of learners with new information through group work and multimedia. At the end of the study, SCLE design was concluded to have a positive effect on learning outcomes. © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Social constructivist learning environment, learning, teaching, instructional design

1. Introduction

Interpretive approaches such as phenomenology adopt subjectively-constructed processes and meanings to understand the nature of reality through people's experiences. The phenomenological approach emphasizes the subjective processes of any situation. The aim of this approach is to find out what an experience means for those who have had the experience and are able to provide a comprehensive description of it (Mertens, 1998). In the SCLE, learners construct knowledge subjectively; therefore, it is appropriate to examine the effects of this design using the phenomenological approach.

Social constructivism is related to the idea developed by Vygotsky’s (1929, 1930) that all knowledge is constructed socially and it forms a part of the society-centred field of constructivism. The major theme of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework is the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky offers explanations for the zone of proximal development to make indirect practical suggestions for educators. In a simpler way, learners develop their thinking through language during an interactive communication in a collaborative learning environment. Moreover, learners develop their language through thinking as well. Thus, one of the most important features of SCLE is that it creates a zone for proximal development processes (Fer, 2009). ‘Social Constructivist Learning’ (SCL) answers the questions of “what knowing is” and “how an individual knows” through suggesting that

Semra Akyol and Seval Fer / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 948–953 949

knowledge is constructed socially and culturally (Fosnot, 1996). To organize the learning process in a social and cultural environment, the SCL process occurs in a learner through activation of existing basic cognitive processes, such as experiences, beliefs, knowledge, skills and mental models. This process requires continuous mental variation and connections between current knowledge and learning experiences. The learner decides her/himself the particular meaning that is accepted by her/him and how the new meaning is harmonized in the mental models of the learner. Interactions with others in a social and cultural context assist the learner in this process (Fer & Cirik, 2007).

In a SCLE, as a characteristic of instructional design, learners and teachers participate in the designing process. However, the emphasis is on learning and the “learning environment”, rather than on the “instructional or teaching process” (Fer, 2009). SCLE design focuses on the sharing of individual meaning and on the knowledge constructed via cooperation with peers (Gagnon & Collay, 2001). Thus, one of the important methods used in a SCLE design is collaborative learning. The common point of this method is that group members are responsible for the learning of both themselves and of other group members and, group success is rewarded (Avci & Fer, 2004). Learners also construct their experiences via discussion or through collaborative groups in problem solving activities. In a SCLE, one of the important duties to be undertaken by the teacher is to assess learner learning (Tobin & Tippins, 1993). Authentic assessment approach is appropriate for SCLE. The teacher undertakes a facilitative role in acquisition of knowledge by the learners (Fer & Cirik, 2007).

SCLE has such limitations as (1) the learner needs much more time for the construction process since time is used in a flexible way; (2) both the educator and learner are required to make a lot of preparations (Farris, 1996); and (3) constructivism is a method that is quite difficult to apply in a traditional environment and classroom (Fer & Cirik, 2007). However, implementation of SCLE principles in an effective way can eliminate these limitations (see, Fer & Cirik, 2007). Moreover, the increasing number of implementation-oriented studies may also offer solutions for these problems. In previous studies (e.g., Bolliger, 23/08/2010; Cirik, 2005; Cimen, 2010; Marinopoulos & Stavridou, 2008; Pilatou & Stavridou, 2008; Solomonidou & Kolokotronis, 2008; Solomonidou & Kalantzi, 2008; Syh-Jong, 2007), SCLEs were found to have positive effects on learning. In the light of this information, this study examined the hypothesis that SCLE design has a positive effect on the learning outcomes of 5th grade learners.

2. Method

2.1. Research method and participants

In this study, a focus group method was applied with a phenomenological approach. SCLE design was applied to the study group comprised of thirty seven 5th grade learners (22 female, 15 male) who attended at Kemal Kaya Primary School in Istanbul (Turkey) and who were taught Science and Technology course in 2009-2010 academic year. Learners were in 10 (n=30)-13 (n=2) age range. Following the course, a focus group interview was conducted with 7 of the 37 study participant learners.

2.2. Data collection tools and implementation

In order to address the limitations of various data collection tools, several different data collection tools were applied during SCLE design implementation and qualitative data collection process.

SCLE design and implementation: Two weeks before the implementation, both learner analysis and content analysis were conducted for the course module titled “The Earth, the Sun and the Moon”. Then, subjects were administered construct meaning analysis and evaluation preference analysis forms. The aim of this process was to design SCLE according to learner needs. Four-week implementations were performed using the SCLE design stage presented in Figure 1 (Fer, 2009).

950 Semra Akyol and Seval Fer / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 948–953

Figure 1. Fer’s SCLE design dimensions

As seen in Figure 1, four dimensions were applied as follows: (1) Based on the data obtained from Learner Analysis forms, heterogeneous collaborative working groups were set up each containing four to six learners. Interaction among different learners was facilitated via weekly changes made in group members and group size. (2) Data obtained from Content Analysis forms was used to set learning objectives for the course module “The Earth, the Sun and the Moon”, and the topics and content of the module were then determined on the basis of these objectives. (3) The members of the collaborative working groups met to define the topics to be studied. Then, these topics were examined in detail through class discussion. To activate the learning process, the groups used information sources in preparation of different products (models, posters, etc.). Groups concretized their knowledge by preparing products, presenting these products, and answering questions asked by their teacher and peers. (4) Using a wide range of “authentic assessment” tools (self-assessment, rubric, group presentation assessment, product assessment and individual testing), the researchers measured at which level the learners constructed knowledge. Also, the learners measured themselves their own level of knowledge construction. Learning process was evaluated by this way and, assessment results were discussed with learners. The researcher served as a guide, an assistant, a facilitator and a moderator in this process.

Semi-structured focus group interview: Seven members (5 female, 2 male) of the focus group were randomly selected for interviews administered at school hours. One session of the interview, which lasted approximately 40 minutes, was recorded upon receipt of a former consent of the learners. In addition, parents gave consent for declaration of learner names in the research report. To determine the effect of SCLE design on learning, following questions were asked during the focus group interview: (1) What kind of individual differences have had either positive or negative effects on your learning? How have they affected this process? (2) Which learning objectives have you set? How have you achieved these objectives? (3) How have you learnt in the new learning process? Which way have you followed? (4) Which subjects have been easier to learn, and why? (5) Which subjects have been difficult to learn, and why? (6) What are your suggestions for a better learning of these topics?

2.3. Data analysis

Due to the length and coverage of the questions, the interview transcripts served as the main source of data. The data were analyzed by applying the work by Miles and Huberman (1992) on the interview transcripts so as to identify the categories and themes (cited in Mertens, 1998). To ensure full accuracy of the interview transcripts, the transcripts were compared to audio records. The transcripts were then used to code each learner’s responses into categories and subcategories, according to the themes that were identified.

3. Findings

Learner views about the SCLE design were encoded with the initial letter of their names. The interview findings were grouped into 25 categories within 6 themes, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Learners’ responses of the SCLE design 1. Attaining learning objective N Learners * 3. Easyly learned topics N Learners *

Semra Akyol and Seval Fer / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 948–953 951

Completing missing knowledge 4 (I), (S), (A), L) Movements of the Earth 3 (S), (A), (G) Learning knowledge that is wondered 3 (L), (G), (C) Moon phases 2 (L), (F)

Adapting to daily life 2 (I), (A) 4. Topics that are learned difficult N Learners * 2. Way of constructing knowledge N Learners * Planets 4 (I), (L), (F), (C)

Group works 5 (A), (S), (C), (F), (I) Phases of Moon’s forms 3 (G), (A), (S) Using three-dimensional models 5 (S), (G), (F), (C), (A) 5. Strengths and weaknesses of

learning environment N Learners *

PowerPoint presentations 5 (S), (C), (A), (G), (L) Sharing tasks within the group to facilitate learning

3 (A), (C), (I)

Questions and group discussions 4 (L), (G), (C), (F) Finding activities enjoyable 3 (L), (C), (F) Resource books 4 (G), (I), (L), (S) Not obeying shared tasks within the

group 3 (L), (I), (G)

Teacher presentation 4 (L), (I), (A), (C) Having disturbance in the group 2 (I), (G) Repeating at home 3 (G), (L), (I) Complaining from group members 2 (A), (L)

Watching video 3 (A), (I), (L) 6. Suggestions to learn better N Learners * Internet searching 2 (C), (L) Quite good 2 (C), (I)

Making experiment 2 (L), (S) Enough, most of them might make us bored

1 (F)

A learner might study on his/her own 1 (G)

*Code names in parenthesis represented the participants; each was given a code name instead of using their names. As shown in Table 1, learners had different ideas about attaining learning objective: For instance, Learner (S)

stated that the SCLE design allowed her to complete missing knowledge on the course subject, “The Earth, the Moon, the Sun, other than something I did not know that! ... We (I) learned the phases of the Moon, the distances between the planets and their sizes.” Moreover, Learner (G) said that she learned about subjects in which she was interested, “The forms of the Moon, the Moon’s situation. I learned that I was very curious.”

The learners expressed widely differing views on the ways of constructing knowledge within the SCLE. For instance, Learner (F) stated that the use of three-dimensional models helped her learning: “We made models of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. In that way, I learned better than I had knew.” Furthermore, Learner (C) stated that she learned through group work and discussions: “Firstly, we asked for the ideas of everybody in the group, so that everyone knew what we discussed together. We learned by discussing the positive or negative aspects of each idea.” Additionally, Learner (I) and (A) both indicated that they learned from teacher’s presentation. Learner (S) stated that “By group work, experimentation and also use of computer (Microsoft PowerPoint presentations) " and Learner (G) underlined that they benefited from multiple learning methods: “I learned very well from the models. Then I repeated the work at home. So I've learned.”

Topics learned easily are represented in the SCLE via following examples: Learner (A) found it easy to learn the “Movements of the Earth” topic, “The Movements of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon” and Learner (L) found it easy to learn the “Phases of the Moon” topic: “In fact, I realized Moon's phases more.”. Topics described as being difficult to learn are represented in the SCLE via following examples: Learner (G) said that she had difficulty in distinguishing phases of the Moon’s forms: “I was a little bit confused about the first and last quarter, because they look like similar.” and Learner (F) stated that she had difficulty in learning about the planets: “A bit hard on the planets, because their sizes and features confused my mind”.

The strengths of the SCLE design are demonstrated by the following examples, in which learners stated that they were satisfied with sharing tasks in a group work: Learner (I) stated, “I think that distribution of the tasks was good, because everyone knew which task she/he was assigned”. Moreover, Learner (C), who expressed a similar opinion, stated that “I summarized the topic to my group since it was my task to summarise it to group members after learning the topic. This process allowed everyone to retain the learnt information longer.” In another response, Learner (C) stated that she found the activities different, instructive and enjoyable: “... normally, we learn everything from books; therefore, all (studies) came to us differently. I think this way of learning is more enjoyable. You are taking responsibility and working within the group, learning knowledge and also having fun...(in this process). I think these activities should continue.”.

The weaknesses of SCLE designs are demonstrated by the following examples: Learner (G) complained about group members not obeying the tasks shared within the group: “My task was to clarify complex information (within group). I got upset when they did not listen to me.”. Moreover, Learner (L) expressed similar concerns, describing

952 Semra Akyol and Seval Fer / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 948–953

her complaints about other group members: “My task was to write down important things within the group. I think, I was not useful (within the group), because Furkan (a member of the group) made changes on what I wrote.” Furthermore, Learner (I) talked about the group discussions: “I can’t say that I learned very much in the group, because sometimes there were complaints in the group.”. In addition, Learner (G) indicated that too much noise and chaos within the group caused disturbance, “I really do not like the group (working), because there is confusion (within the group). All groups talk very much, which is very disturbing, so I do not understand.”

The learner suggestions in terms of learning better within a SCLE design revealed two similar ideas. For instance, Learner (I) and Learner (C) stated that “I think this could not be better” and they found the implementations satisfactory. In contrast, Learner (G) expressed that she wanted to work individually: “I can learn better when I do homework on my own.”

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The responses to the focus group interview questions were used to test the research hypothesis. In the assessment of the SCLE design, four learners (Learner L, C, A and F) indicated that individual differences affected their learning. However, the learners could explain neither which individual differences affected their learning nor how they were affected. Therefore, the learner responses to the first questions of the focus group interview are not analyzed. This outcome can be explained on the grounds that study participants were quite young and were not mature enough to be aware of individual differences.

With SCLEs, learners can find opportunities to complete missing knowledge, to learn new topics and to acquire knowledge they are interested in. They can also adapt such knowledge into daily life. Thus, it can be concluded that SCLE helps learners to achieve their learning objectives. Similar findings were reported in the SCLE literature as well. For instance, Pilatou and Stavridou (2008) found that learners can establish a connection between daily subjects and science knowledge. Moreover, Ergul (2010) found that learners can associate mathematics with daily life, also, Solomonidou and Kalantzi (2008) concluded that deep learning can be achieved through a SCLE supported with worksheets.

In SCLE design, meaning construction varied widely in the classroom. Similar SCLE studies in the field of science (e.g., Marinopoulos & Stavridou, 2008; Pilatou & Stavridou, 2008; Solomonidou & Kolokotronis, 2008; Syh-Jong, 2007) showed that knowledge constructed in social environments and collaborative learning environments affects the learning of concepts and phenomena. Similar to the findings of the present study, the findings of Solomonidou and Kalantzi (2008), Solomonidou and Kolokotronis (2008), Bolliger (23/08/2010) and Cimen (2010) showed that multimedia teaching aids are effective in the construction of knowledge by learners. Furthermore, according to Jonassen (1999), visual tools such as computer programs, and modelling tools such as databases, spreadsheets, hypermedia, etc. should be effectively used in constructing learners' cognitive schemas. Moreover, these tools should be effective in allowing learners to analyze the course content. In addition, resource books and presentations by teachers can help learners in accessing knowledge.

In SCLE, easily-learned topics were selected both on the basis of the content analysis and a module titled “The Earth, the Sun and the Moon” included in the 5th grade primary school curriculum of the Ministry of National Education’s (MONE) on Science and Technology. The topic “Planets”, which some learners find difficult, is usually included in the content of the 7th grade Science and Technology Course of the MONE curriculum. However, it was necessary to include this subject in the present study, because learners selected this topic in content analysis process; therefore, this topic was covered briefly in this study. The difficulties that learners reported when learning about the “Planets” topic resulted from the fact that this topic is normally regarded to be beyond the developmental level of learners of this age group.

SCLE design was found to be enjoyable and interesting by the learners in the present and similar studies (e.g., Ergul, 2010; Solomonidou & Kolokotronis, 2008; Syh-Jong, 2007). Also, the present study obtained results similar to those reported by Avci and Fer (2004), Bolliger (23/08/2010) and Cirik's (2005), which showed that task-sharing in a group had a positive effect on learning. This finding can be also explained on the basis of the role of peer teaching. According to Henson (2003), peers can help each other during problem solving, be a model for other learners, and encourage others in the collaborative learning process. However, similar to the findings of Ergul (2010) as well as those of Fer and Avci (2004), the present study found that disturbance occurred in SCLEs as some learners violated teamwork rules by not undertaking the tasks they were assigned in the group. Not listening to each

Semra Akyol and Seval Fer / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 948–953 953

other and making a lot of noise in class during collaborative learning may have also caused difficulties for some learners who prefer individual study and studying in quiet environments.

As a result, the hypothesis that “SCLE design has a positive impact on the 5th grade learners” was supported by findings of the present study. However, the SCLE design can be used in instruction after addressing the problems that may be encountered during implementations. For instance, according to the study findings, practitioners might use multimedia teaching aids; take learning objectives of learners into consideration; and improve learner awareness on their responsibility within the learning environments. In future studies, researchers might search learners’ individual differences in the scope of SCLE. Furthermore, the effects of collaborative groups might be studied in terms of learner knowledge construction in intra- and inter-group conditions.

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by ‘The Coordinatorate for Scientific Research and Project (BAPK)’ within the context of ‘The Project for Master Thesis (YULAP)’, Yildiz Technical University, Project nr. 2010-09-01-YL01.

References

Avci S., & Fer, S. (2004). Birlestirme II teknigine gore olusturulan isbirligine dayali ögrenme ortaminin ogrenciler uzerindeki etkisi: Kartal merkezi egitim merkezi'nde bir durum calismasi, Egitim ve Bilim, 29 (134), 61-74.

Bolliger, D.U. (23/08/2010). Investigating student learning in a constructivist multimedia-rich learning environment. Retrieved August, 23, 2010, from http://www.nathanstrenge.com/page10/files/investigating-learning-in-a-constructivist-multimedia-environment.pdf.

Cirik, I. (2005). Ilkogretim 5. sinif sosyal bilgiler dersi “guzel yurdumuz Turkiye” unitesi icin sosyo-kulturel olusturmaci ve geleneksel ogrenme ortamlarinin ogrenenlerin akademik basarilarina, ogrenmenin kaliciligina ve goruslerine etkisi. Yayimlanmamis yuksek lisans tezi. Yildiz Teknik Universitesi, Istanbul.

Cimen, U. (2010). lkögretim 7. sinif bilisim teknolojileri dersinde problem temelli yaklasima gore olusturulan sosyal yapilandirmaci ogretim ortami tasariminin etkililigi. Yayimlanmamis yuksek lisans tezi. Yildiz Teknik Universitesi, Istanbul.

Ergul, S. (2010). Ilkogretim 6. sinif matematik dersinde problem temelli yaklas ma gore olusturulan sosyal yapilandirmaci ogretim ortaminin etkililigi. Yayimlanmamis yuksek lisans tezi. Yildiz Teknik Universitesi, Istanbul.

Farris, P.J. (1996). Teaching bearing the torch. Madison: Brown Benchmark Publishers. Fer, S. (2009). Social constructivism and social constructivist curricula in Turkey for the needs of differences of young people: Overview in light

of the PROMISE project. In T. Tajmel & S. Klaus (Eds.), Science education unlimited: Approaches to equal opportunity in learning science (pp. 179-199). Münster: Waxmann Verlag co. Publisher.

Fer, S., & Cirik, I. (2007). Yapilandirmaci ogrenme: Kuramdan uygulamaya Istanbul: Morpa Kultur Yayinlari. Fosnot, C.T. ( 1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and

practice (pp. 8-33). New York: Teachers College Press. Gagnon, G.W., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist classrooms. California: Corwin Press. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A

new paradigms of nstructional theory (pp. 215-239) New Jersey Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Henson, K.T. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered educational: A knowledge base. Education, 124 (1), 5-16. Retrieved August, 20, 2010,

from EBSCOhost database. Marinopoulos, D. & Stavridou H. (2008). Improving primary school students’ (11-12) understanding about water pollution. International Journal

of Learning, 15(5), 143-149. Retrieved August, 20, 2010, from EBSCOhost database. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches.

London: Sage. Pilatou, V., & Stavridou, H. (2008). A case study on primary school students’ ideas evolution about simple circuit and parallel connection.

International Journal of Learning, 15(5), 143-149. Retrieved August, 20, 2010, from EBSCOhost database. Solomonidou, C., & Kalantzi, S. (2008). Teaching thermal phenomena by the use of educational software of constructivist inspiration.

International Journal of Learning, 15(6), 253-261. Retrieved August, 20, 2010, from EBSCOhost database. Solomonidou, C., & Kolokotronis, D. (2008). The role of constructivist educational software on students’ learning regarding mechanical

interaction. Education and Information Technologies, 13(3), 185-219. Retrieved August, 20, 2010, from ProQuest database. Syh-Jong, J. (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49

(1), 65–81. Retrieved September, 5, 2010, from Eric Digest EJ764172. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993) Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Constructivism: The practice of

constructivism in science education (pp. 3-21). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Vygotsky, L. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Retrieved June 11, 2008 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1929/cultural_development.htm. Vygotsky, L. (1930). Mind and society. Retrieved June 19, 2008 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/mind/chap6.htm .